We need to get into specifics with Israel.

We often talk about how our foreign aid makes Israel dependent on us, and that we interfere with their international negotiations and how they deal with their neighbors. We should start talking about specific examples rather than these generalities. Can you guys think of any besides that one time Israel bombed Iraqi nuclear reactors and we yelled at them?

I’m fascinated with your word unconventional. Isn’t it strange that we can apply that term to freedom, and liberty, and the constitution, a balanced budget, and limited government? – Ron Paul

You mean us, or Ron? I hope Ron does everything he possibly can to avoid the subject of Israel. I feel bad for him with the two foreign policy debates coming up.

The first time the US got involved in Israeli affairs, it was the Suez Crisis. The UK, due to backing down, gave up all power in the Middle East and it's position as a superpower, the US took over. Since then, the US has dictated pretty much everything to Israel, with a few bumps here and there. How's that for interfering?

just quote netanyahu. he's said explicitly that the israelis don't want or need american interference. we give them $3 billion a year in aid. their gdp is $217 billion. it's not exactly like they'd starve without us. we could still sell them weapons. if the little guy wants protection from the big guy... the little guy pays.. not the other way around.

and of course there is the argument that we shouldn't subsidize their welfare state while fighting to end our own (for republicans obviously). then of course there's the ringer: state funded abortion. our aid dollars fund abortions through the israeli government.

or, you could always just ask "what exactly is the direct strategic interest that the united states has in israel". you'll get a canned "they're our closest ally" response or deer in the headlights. if they pull the "ally" card, that's not an answer to the question. the question is why should we continue the allegiance as it stands, not whether or not it exists. they will have no answer, because there isn't a good one.

As little as possible should be said about Israel. You can't win an argument on the subject. Just broad statements that we can't afford any more foregn aid with all the people hurting in our own country. That sells, getting specific on Israel doesn't.

War; everything in the world wrong, evil and immoral combined into one and multiplied by millions.

Do you have a source for that? I think it would be great for convincing a lot of people, such as my mother.

some guy on the forum has a link in his signature that explains it all. can't remember his name, but i followed the link and it seemed to check out. they provide abortions through their state-sponsored healthcare system.

They always use the "I will bless those who bless you and I will curse those who curse you" passage in the Old Testiment as a pretext foragreeing to fight Israel's wars for them and come to their defense. This is in direct contradiction to the Christian Just War Principles and in opposition to the will of the Prince of Peace. They always imply that without the United States Israel will some day be destroyed by her enemies but NOWHERE in scripture does Israel get destroyed after they return to their homeland. NOWHERE-EVER. If they really believe in the bible then they MUST believe that too. All through the bible it says that God and God ONLY is the protector of Israel. Now, to apply to ANYONE or ANYTHING the attributes of God is a form of blasphemy. So if God says that He is Israel's protector then to say that Israel would be destroyed without the United States is blasphemy. So if you're talking to a Christian you'll cut them to the quick and they will have no biblical reply.

Also according to Ron Paul is his book "A Foreign Policy of Freedom" we subsidize Israel to the tune of $3.5 Bllion per yer and Israel's enemies to the tune of $7.5 Billion per year so to cut off ALL subsidies to EVERY other country including (gasp) to Israel, they would actually be much better off.

Suppose if Ron Paul gets this gotcha question in the foreign policy debate:

"Consider a hypothetical scenario where Iran secretly developers a nuclear weapon and contrary to what you think, uses it against Israel, and assuming this causes vast destruction in Israel and renders them unable to hit back, as president, what will your response be?"

..and we should assume the worst case and think he will, what should Ron Paul's response be, or what do you think it will be?

I would personally prefer RP saying that he will come to Israel's defense and kick Iran's ass, because if he does not unequivocally say that, his fate will be sealed at that moment. But will he say that? If he does, does it run against what he preaches about no entangling foreign alliances or that we should not be the policeman of the world?

I would personally prefer RP saying that he will come to Israel's defense and kick Iran's ass, because if he does not unequivocally say that, his fate will be sealed at that moment. But will he say that? If he does, does it run against what he preaches about no entangling foreign alliances or that we should not be the policeman of the world?

I think if that actually happened, there's no question a President Paul would strike back provided Congress declared war. It would be such an unprecedented and violent action; no country has ever nuked someone else unprovoked. He voted to authorize to get bin Laden, and this would be much worse than 9/11. If Iran nuked Israel, thousands of American citizens would be killed. So there should be no question about what he would do.

I think his response would be something like, "If that scenario occured, I would see it as threatening to our security and I would go to Congress to declare war. But posing hypotheticals like that is dangerous since it undermines future presidential decision making."

He needs to be more forceful in foreign policy by emphasizing what he would DO and not what he won't do.

Hopefully he would say that by his declaration that he will not interfere with how Israel protects themselves they will realize that their hands are no longer tied to what American presidents have said or done in the past and he will support anything they need to do in order to protect themselves. And, if Congress decides to declare war against Iran then as Commander in Cheif he will execute that war to the best of his ability and win it decisively and then bring our troops home as fast as possible. But the Constitution doesn't allow the president to declare war. Only Congress has that authority and he will uphold the Constitution to the best of his ability.

Since I live in mostly NeoCon town I've found this is mostly just a religious thing and it's pointless to argue, but it would help if he'd stop talking about how Iran "wants a nuke to feel safe", why does he keep bringing that up? Who cares if Iran feels safe or not, this statement goes completely against what Ron is saying which is that none of that is our business, if Iran feels safe or doesn't feel safe that is not America's problem, stick to the logic of the Soviets and the Cold War, how poor Iran is, how they don't have an air force, a navy, or long range missles, that's things people can get on board with.

They always use the "I will bless those who bless you and I will curse those who curse you" passage in the Old Testiment as a pretext foragreeing to fight Israel's wars for them and come to their defense. This is in direct contradiction to the Christian Just War Principles and in opposition to the will of the Prince of Peace. They always imply that without the United States Israel will some day be destroyed by her enemies but NOWHERE in scripture does Israel get destroyed after they return to their homeland. NOWHERE-EVER. If they really believe in the bible then they MUST believe that too. All through the bible it says that God and God ONLY is the protector of Israel. Now, to apply to ANYONE or ANYTHING the attributes of God is a form of blasphemy. So if God says that He is Israel's protector then to say that Israel would be destroyed without the United States is blasphemy. So if you're talking to a Christian you'll cut them to the quick and they will have no biblical reply.

Also according to Ron Paul is his book "A Foreign Policy of Freedom" we subsidize Israel to the tune of $3.5 Bllion per yer and Israel's enemies to the tune of $7.5 Billion per year so to cut off ALL subsidies to EVERY other country including (gasp) to Israel, they would actually be much better off.

We shouldn't. Israel has no "right to exist" if it can't defend itself, just like every other nation. Why should our boys die so they can keep their stolen land?

I agree. Israel is a nation with much blood on its hands; American blood too! The land is stolen.

Israel should be left to their own devices and not a dime of US currency or a drop of US blood should be expended to help them. If Ron Paul were to come out in support of protecting Israel, he would no longer have my support. A close friend of mine (Rachel Corrie) was murdered by Israeli forces so it hits close to home for me. If Israel gets bombed by Iran they have it coming and aside from some humanitarian aid they should get no defense help. In fact Americans are continually the victims of rabid, tribal Israeli nazis.

I said actually interfering, meaning dictating what they do effectively. They always pushed for the state.

Your wrote "The first time the US got involved in Israeli affairs"; and by “support from the US" in 1948, I meant vital armaments from the US.

The OP wrote, “We often talk about how our foreign aid makes Israel dependent on us”. From 1948-73, France was the primary armament suppler to Israel. But since 1973, after saving them from likely defeat in war, the US has been their primary armament supplier, and in a big way. That’s far from independence from the US, regardless of whether or not the US is "dictating" to Israel, which I disagree is does very much anyway.

Yeah I couldn't imagine why Iran might consider launching attack against a nation with 300 nuclear warheads, the ability to deliver, and which just today was shown to be planning a preemptive strike against them. Preemptive of what? Iran hasn't left it own borders in 1,000 years, is atleast 2 years from having the FUEL for a warhead, much less a device (or any solid proof whatsoever that they are developing one), and no method of delivery. Khomenei himself issued a fatwa against nuclear proliferation, and Muslims don't take that stuff lightly. The facts just don't add up. If anyone is "rattling sabres", it's Netanyahu and Barak.

Do you have a source for that? I think it would be great for convincing a lot of people, such as my mother.

Israel has universal health care and provides abortions through that system. Therefore any funding that comes from the US and goes into supporting that healthcare system could be seen as going into funding abortions.

“Maybe I forgot to mention something to you: I don’t believe in queens. You think freedom is something you can give and take on a whim. But to your people, freedom is as essential as air. And without it, there is no life. There is only darkness.” -Zaheer

That's why the first suicide bombing of the so-called Arab-Israel conflict was done by a Syrian Christian military officer, when he suicide bombed a French ship during the Suez Crisis.

You cannot support Israel without hating and wishing genocide upon Muslims

Sharia = Islam. Those words can be used interchangeably. This is why hate for Sharia is hate for Islam. Hate for Islam leads American troops to kill Muslim children with brown skin color. They are connected and can never be separated.

“A tyrant and the one who helps an oppressor as well as the one who is pleased with such injustice all the three are accomplices in the sin”–Muhammad al-Baqir

"In practice, most requests for abortion are granted, and leniency is shown especially under the clause for emotional or psychological damage to the pregnant woman. According to the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics report from 2004, 19,500 legal abortions were performed in Israel in 2003, while 200 requests for abortion were denied."

Funded by the state:

"In 2006, MK Zehava Gal-On of Meretz proposed a bill that would eliminate the termination committee, effectively decriminalizing unrestricted abortion. Gal-On argued that women with financial means can have abortions in private clinics, bypassing the committee and therefore gaining rights based on their wealth."

I agree. Israel is a nation with much blood on its hands; American blood too! The land is stolen.

Israel should be left to their own devices and not a dime of US currency or a drop of US blood should be expended to help them. If Ron Paul were to come out in support of protecting Israel, he would no longer have my support. A close friend of mine (Rachel Corrie) was murdered by Israeli forces so it hits close to home for me. If Israel gets bombed by Iran they have it coming and aside from some humanitarian aid they should get no defense help. In fact Americans are continually the victims of rabid, tribal Israeli nazis.

Well, I am very sorry to hear about your loss, but honestly that story will not do much to convince a group of warmongering NeoCons who feel it is their spiritual duty to stand with Israel, fact is there is not much logic to what they think to begin with, just look at the fact that the religion of Jesus, possibly the most kind, caring, person ever, has become the religion of war.

We should tell Israel to go $#@! themselves, give them a trillion dollar bill for the mooching they have done off of us, and if they refuse to pay then we will sit back and enjoy watching the wolves around them eat them up.

Israel is not a real nation. They are an entire illegal "nation".

"Countries are benefited when they changed these [national sovereignty] policies, and evidence suggests that North Americans are ready for a new relationship that renders this old definition of sovereignty obsolete."

They always use the "I will bless those who bless you and I will curse those who curse you" passage in the Old Testiment as a pretext foragreeing to fight Israel's wars for them and come to their defense. This is in direct contradiction to the Christian Just War Principles and in opposition to the will of the Prince of Peace. They always imply that without the United States Israel will some day be destroyed by her enemies but NOWHERE in scripture does Israel get destroyed after they return to their homeland. NOWHERE-EVER. If they really believe in the bible then they MUST believe that too. All through the bible it says that God and God ONLY is the protector of Israel. Now, to apply to ANYONE or ANYTHING the attributes of God is a form of blasphemy. So if God says that He is Israel's protector then to say that Israel would be destroyed without the United States is blasphemy. So if you're talking to a Christian you'll cut them to the quick and they will have no biblical reply.

Also according to Ron Paul is his book "A Foreign Policy of Freedom" we subsidize Israel to the tune of $3.5 Bllion per yer and Israel's enemies to the tune of $7.5 Billion per year so to cut off ALL subsidies to EVERY other country including (gasp) to Israel, they would actually be much better off.

The New Testament also clearly teaches that the Church has replaced Israel, and that the descendants of Abraham are those who have the faith of Abraham:

Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you." So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
(Galatians 3:7-9)

There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
(Galatians 3:28-29)

Using Genesis 12 to justify support for the modern day political nation of Israel clearly contradicts this teaching. What causes modern-day Christians to support Israel is NOT biblical teaching like this, but their interpretation of end-time events where they insist that Christ will return to Jerusalem to setup a 1000 year rule. But this is just one interpretation plausible, and historically was not even the majority view of church.

Also, not all Palestinians are Muslims. There are also many Palestinian Christians, and thousands of them lost their land and homes also. Taking sides for religious reasons just doesn't make any sense at all.